Delhi High Court
J. Renugadevi & Ors. vs Religare Finvest Ltd. on 13 January, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.12/2014 & conn. matters
% 13th January, 2014
1. FAO No.12/2014 & C.M. Nos.574/2014(exemption) & 575/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
2. FAO No.13/2014 & C.M. Nos.576/2014(exemption) & 577/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
3. FAO No.14/2014 & C.M. Nos.579/2014(exemption) & 580/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
FAO No.12 /2014 & conn. matters Page 1 of 6
4. FAO No.15/2014 & C.M. Nos.581/2014(exemption) & 582/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
5. FAO No.16/2014 & C.M. Nos.583/2014(exemption) & 584/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
6. FAO No.17/2014 & C.M. Nos.586/2014(exemption) & 587/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
7. FAO No.18/2014 & C.M. Nos.608/2014(exemption) & 609/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
FAO No.12 /2014 & conn. matters Page 2 of 6
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
8. FAO No.19/2014 & C.M. Nos.610/2014(exemption) & 611/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
9. FAO No.20/2014 & C.M. Nos.616/2014(exemption) & 617/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
10. FAO No.21/2014 & C.M. Nos.618/2014(exemption) & 619/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
FAO No.12 /2014 & conn. matters Page 3 of 6
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
11. FAO No.22/2014 & C.M. Nos.620/2014(exemption) & 621/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
12. FAO No.23/2014 & C.M. Nos.651/2014(exemption) & 652/2014
(stay)
J. RENUGADEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This common judgment is passed in these appeals as the
challenge in the appeals is to the almost identical orders passed by the court
below by which in the applications of the respondent/lender an order has
FAO No.12 /2014 & conn. matters Page 4 of 6
been passed for repossessing the hypothecated vehicles/machines by a
receiver on account of non-payment of the loan instalments to the
respondent.
2. When this appeal came up on the first call, though the counsel
for the appellants at that stage ought to have had instructions as to whether
the defaulted instalments would be paid by the appellants within a particular
period of time, yet as the counsel did not have instructions, the matters were
passed over. When the matters came up on the second call, counsel for the
appellants states that on account of financial difficulty, appellants will only
pay one instalment when approximately at least seven instalments in each of
the cases are due. The total amount due for all the cases comes to
approximately Rs.60 crores towards instalments to the respondent.
3. It is trite that money borrowed is not money earned. A
borrower does not favour the lender when instalments are paid. Surely,
appellants in cases like these cases have no law, equity or bonafides in their
favour because it cannot be that as many as seven instalments will not be
paid yet the hypothecated vehicles/machines will not be repossessed and the
appellants can keep on using vehicles/machines which they purchased by
taking loans and without paying the due loan instalments. Even with respect
FAO No.12 /2014 & conn. matters Page 5 of 6
to future instalments, I may note that counsel for the appellants states that
appellants will only pay alternative instalments and not instalments every
month. This, in my opinion, is clearly unacceptable especially because
counsel for the respondent states that the vehicles have been rendered
untraceable.
4. Considering the facts of the present case where the
respondent/lender has only the security of the subject vehicles/machines and
when taken with the facts as stated above, no case is made out for interfering
with the impugned orders. I may note that though counsel for the appellants
states that appellants are ready to participate in the arbitration proceedings,
however, I fail to understand how that can in any manner be used for setting
aside the impugned orders when we take the factum with respect to defaults
committed and no honest inclination shown for repayment of the existing
dues as also future dues.
5. In view of the above, appeals are accordingly dismissed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Since the appeals are dismissed,
all the pending applications are disposed of as such.
JANUARY 13, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
